I'm not worried. The current glitches will be ironed out over time (as is with all new legislation). The increase in premiums/co-pay is a result of how "healthy" your insurer deems you/your family/your employee plan to be (my understanding from my HR director). The healthier/younger you are, the more you will pay as opposed to those who have health issues and/or are older.

This system, while not the most ideal for all, is WAY better than what we had prior to 2012, i.e., nothing. As a parent of a child with a 'pre-existing condition' (asthma, that he has since grown out of), he would not qualify for insurance covering any breathing/lung issues because BCBS of TN deemed his cold-induced asthma to be a pre-existing condition. In fact, I still have the letter from them stating that for my family to remain covered I agree, per their terms, that BCBS of TN would not pay for any future asthma-related treatments, including prescriptions and breathing treatments, as they deemed his condition pre-existing. He is 21 now and hasn't had a problem with asthma since he was 10 yrs. old. The arbitrary-ness and hardline stances that insurance companies hold/held, with little to no recourse for insureds and hopeful-insureds to fight against, is part of what the ACA seeks to stop. Before ACA, your insurance coverage depended upon a 'pencil-pusher' with little to no medical background crunching numbers to see whether your coverage was 'beneficial' to the insurance carrier - NOT beneficial to the insured's health (which is supposed to be the point of having health insurance anyway), but what is beneficial to the company and the company's profit margin (i.e., shareholder greed).

Now, through ACA, people can comparison shop for insurance coverage that best meets their needs without fear of being denied due to income or past medical history. What is wrong with that? Especially when you look at the arguments prior to ACA of "my insurance is high because of the lost revenue from uninsured medical care," "the increased costs of treating is directly related to the offset of uninsured medical losses," etc.

Not to mention that the majority of middle class people, with pre-ACA insurance coverage, were 1 cancer diagnosis (or other tragic illness) away from bankruptcy - even with insurance coverage! Why does America pay exceedingly more for healthcare than the rest of the world - because "we can" or because that's all we had?

Whether one believes in a religion or not,and whether one believes in rebirth or not, there isn't anyone who doesn't appreciate kindness and compassion. ~ Dalai Lama

I'm not worried. This health care system will work if given a chance. But there are two problems with it.

(1) It is a half-step in the right direction toward universal single payer health insurance. It can't work really well until we go the other half step. But for now, this is out of reach.

(2) Most Republicans desperately want it to fail, especially the Tea Party, and especially politicians. They are willing to go to great lengths to interfere with its functioning, to try to MAKE it fail. Some talk show host was urging all his listeners to call the PPACA help line as many times as possible, and stay on the line as long as possible; the intention being that if they can clog up the help line with bogus calls, then the people who actually need help won't be able to get it.

Another Republican strategy is to try to convince young people that they should decline to enroll because the penalty is cheaper than the insurance cost. Like any insurance, it doesn't work if the only people who buy it are those who are going to be filing lots of claims.

If Republicans actually believed that the PPACA is unworkable, then they would be happy to let it go into effect and let the public see with their own eyes that it doesn't work. But they don't believe that. They are terrified that it WILL WORK, and the public will then give the credit to the Democrats for doing something good. I've posted several times that back in 1994, Dick Armey admitted that this is why Republicans were against health care. They quickly muzzled him, and ever since they have concealed their reason. But lately, it's coming to the surface again. In the past two weeks, Ted Cruz, Sarah Palin, and a third major Republican [can't remember which one] have publicly stated that the party must go all out to stop the ACA because once it goes into effect people will like it so much it will then be impossible ever to repeal it.

My union has a waiver from all of the Cadillac taxes and some of the other requirements so I am all good, sucks for those that can't afford to pay the piper in DC. I know the UAW has the same waiver so Prop will be good too.

Bamauofa wrote:I read on here all the time how many would like a single payer system, I would be all for an optional single payer system.

So I guess we could optionally support all kinds of things. Wars. Farm subsidies. The National Weather Service. Social Security. Basic scientific research. That would be great, wouldn't it? No, that would actually be stupid, and lead to complete chaos, and total societal and financial devastation. But that's exactly what the Ted Cruz lunatic caucus seems to want.

bmccullough wrote:I'm not worried. The current glitches will be ironed out over time (as is with all new legislation). The increase in premiums/co-pay is a result of how "healthy" your insurer deems you/your family/your employee plan to be (my understanding from my HR director). The healthier/younger you are, the more you will pay as opposed to those who have health issues and/or are older.

This system, while not the most ideal for all, is WAY better than what we had prior to 2012, i.e., nothing. As a parent of a child with a 'pre-existing condition' (asthma, that he has since grown out of), he would not qualify for insurance covering any breathing/lung issues because BCBS of TN deemed his cold-induced asthma to be a pre-existing condition. In fact, I still have the letter from them stating that for my family to remain covered I agree, per their terms, that BCBS of TN would not pay for any future asthma-related treatments, including prescriptions and breathing treatments, as they deemed his condition pre-existing. He is 21 now and hasn't had a problem with asthma since he was 10 yrs. old. The arbitrary-ness and hardline stances that insurance companies hold/held, with little to no recourse for insureds and hopeful-insureds to fight against, is part of what the ACA seeks to stop. Before ACA, your insurance coverage depended upon a 'pencil-pusher' with little to no medical background crunching numbers to see whether your coverage was 'beneficial' to the insurance carrier - NOT beneficial to the insured's health (which is supposed to be the point of having health insurance anyway), but what is beneficial to the company and the company's profit margin (i.e., shareholder greed).

Now, through ACA, people can comparison shop for insurance coverage that best meets their needs without fear of being denied due to income or past medical history. What is wrong with that? Especially when you look at the arguments prior to ACA of "my insurance is high because of the lost revenue from uninsured medical care," "the increased costs of treating is directly related to the offset of uninsured medical losses," etc.

Not to mention that the majority of middle class people, with pre-ACA insurance coverage, were 1 cancer diagnosis (or other tragic illness) away from bankruptcy - even with insurance coverage! Why does America pay exceedingly more for healthcare than the rest of the world - because "we can" or because that's all we had?

That is simply not true. The increases have nothing to do with our health but are there to pay for the enormous cost of taking on the previous uninsurables. Some of those have problems that will require millions in added coverage.

You guessed it, the healthy among us get the tab. Lke BIC mine is going up 60 percent with absolutely no change in health.

The entire thing is a catastrophe that will lead to disaster. Write it down and make a record of it: Massively higher premiums in the years ahead, coupled with inferior coverage and inferior service.

Of the currently uninsured, only about 25% are ultimately expected to enroll.

And the whole point in this mess is to redistribute the wealth, advance socialism, and gain control of our society. And of course that's exactly what Obama's cheerleaders and apologists are seeking because they'll be the beneficiaries of that Orwellian goal.

Would it be safe to say here that the ones who like this law will benefit from it the most, while the ones who don't like it are the ones who receive no benefit? The law did not positively affect me at all. It negatively affected my family. We will have to cut our budget by $600 a month to make up for the extra cost this "wonderful" law is imposing on us. Can you find an extra $600 laying around every month at your house? Do you have that much disposable income on hand? I don't. My family will cut back and do without some things and receive no benefit whatsoever.BIC

bmccullough wrote:I'm not worried. The current glitches will be ironed out over time (as is with all new legislation). The increase in premiums/co-pay is a result of how "healthy" your insurer deems you/your family/your employee plan to be (my understanding from my HR director). The healthier/younger you are, the more you will pay as opposed to those who have health issues and/or are older.

This system, while not the most ideal for all, is WAY better than what we had prior to 2012, i.e., nothing. As a parent of a child with a 'pre-existing condition' (asthma, that he has since grown out of), he would not qualify for insurance covering any breathing/lung issues because BCBS of TN deemed his cold-induced asthma to be a pre-existing condition. In fact, I still have the letter from them stating that for my family to remain covered I agree, per their terms, that BCBS of TN would not pay for any future asthma-related treatments, including prescriptions and breathing treatments, as they deemed his condition pre-existing. He is 21 now and hasn't had a problem with asthma since he was 10 yrs. old. The arbitrary-ness and hardline stances that insurance companies hold/held, with little to no recourse for insureds and hopeful-insureds to fight against, is part of what the ACA seeks to stop. Before ACA, your insurance coverage depended upon a 'pencil-pusher' with little to no medical background crunching numbers to see whether your coverage was 'beneficial' to the insurance carrier - NOT beneficial to the insured's health (which is supposed to be the point of having health insurance anyway), but what is beneficial to the company and the company's profit margin (i.e., shareholder greed).

Now, through ACA, people can comparison shop for insurance coverage that best meets their needs without fear of being denied due to income or past medical history. What is wrong with that? Especially when you look at the arguments prior to ACA of "my insurance is high because of the lost revenue from uninsured medical care," "the increased costs of treating is directly related to the offset of uninsured medical losses," etc.

Not to mention that the majority of middle class people, with pre-ACA insurance coverage, were 1 cancer diagnosis (or other tragic illness) away from bankruptcy - even with insurance coverage! Why does America pay exceedingly more for healthcare than the rest of the world - because "we can" or because that's all we had?

That is simply not true. The increases have nothing to do with our health but are there to pay for the enormous cost of taking on the previous uninsurables. Some of those have problems that will require millions in added coverage.

You guessed it, the healthy among us get the tab. Lke BIC mine is going up 60 percent with absolutely no change in health.

Have never had a hospital stay.

B3 is pretending to know what he is talking about.

"To argue with a person who has renounced the use of reason is like administering medicine to the dead." - Thomas Paine